Never thought I'd see this day

[ReiperX]

http://www.cnn.com/2..tanamo.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration, called to account by Congress after the Supreme Court blocked military tribunals, said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

Well, you can tell the elections are right around the corner. In some ways I hope that maybe this is how he really feels and not just some reelection ploy, but I do remain doubtful.

[Korriken]

would be a hell of a relection ploy considering he has used his 2 terms and cant run again.... but, that does make the republicans look good doesn't it?

[rainmaker]

I can't beleive you haven't read the Constitution.
Or, at least, the 27 Amendments. God, who hasn't?

The president can only serve two presidential terms... I don't know what else to say, I figured EVERYBODY knew that... I'm feeling numb.

[Korriken]

At 7/11/06 08:08 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: I can't beleive you haven't read the Constitution.
Or, at least, the 27 Amendments. God, who hasn't?

The president can only serve two presidential terms... I don't know what else to say, I figured EVERYBODY knew that... I'm feeling numb.

he can't but it still makes the conservatives look better i suppose. maybe Bush will put a putin and start giving raspberries to 5 year old boys? that would be funny as hell.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

What about Bush No. 3? Isn’t he suppose to be in the line in a few years?

[Korriken]

Jeb? probably. time for a democrat to get elected, just to keep things in perspective i suppose.

[Memorize]

You heared it here folks. The supreme court has ruled that suicidal maniacs that target civilians should be treated with kindness.

[rainmaker]

At 7/11/06 08:15 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: What about Bush No. 3? Isn’t he suppose to be in the line in a few years?

Oh yeah, Jed? IDK, I wouldn't vote for him, because this country's fallen on rough times through both Bush terms. I don't know if my dad's heart could handle another one.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS THEIR FAULT, I AM SAYING IT HAS NEVER REALLY GONE WELL DURING THEIR STAY IN THE OVAL OFFICE. THAT IS IT.

[JMHX]

At 7/11/06 08:18 PM, AccessCode wrote: You heared it here folks. The supreme court has ruled that suicidal maniacs that target civilians should be treated with kindness.

So find them guilty.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 7/11/06 08:18 PM, AccessCode wrote: You heared it here folks. The supreme court has ruled that suicidal maniacs that target civilians should be treated with kindness.

I thought Americans were proud of their justice system. Not too scared to use it.

[mikeysevilarmy]

just lock them up forever never let them out of gitmo they're to dangerous to be let out.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 7/11/06 10:32 PM, mikeysevilarmy wrote: just lock them up forever never let them out of gitmo they're to dangerous to be let out.

How the fuck do you know that if they’ve never been trailed?

Dozens have already been let out after years of false imprisonment.

USA, home of the cowardly and the oppressed.

[mikeysevilarmy]

At 7/11/06 10:45 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

How the fuck do you know that if they’ve never been trailed?

Dozens have already been let out after years of false imprisonment.

USA, home of the cowardly and the oppressed.

well dumbass of course you let the ones who're innocent out of gitmo what im saying is those we KNOW are guilty should stay their.im not saying that we shouldnt keep investigating, making sure we didnt capture the wrong people.

[JMHX]

At 7/11/06 10:59 PM, mikeysevilarmy wrote:

At 7/11/06 10:45 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

well dumbass of course you let the ones who're innocent out of gitmo what im saying is those we KNOW are guilty should stay their.im not saying that we shouldnt keep investigating, making sure we didnt capture the wrong people.

And what is the way we determine innocence or guilt in the United States?

come on...

come on....

I know you can do it..

[stafffighter]

At 7/11/06 10:59 PM, mikeysevilarmy wrote: what im saying is those we KNOW are guilty should stay their.im not saying that we shouldnt keep investigating, making sure we didnt capture the wrong people.

wow. if we know who's guilty there's no need for due process!

[Elfer]

At 7/11/06 08:18 PM, AccessCode wrote: You heared it here folks. The supreme court has ruled that suicidal maniacs that target civilians should be treated with kindness.

Well god damn it, we should be able to torture people and hold them indefnitely without any sort of trial or evidence against them whenever we want!

Human rights are rights for humans, no matter how shitty those humans may be. You signed the international treaties, you agree to the rules set out in said treaties. You don't get special exceptions because you're America and you're the biggest one on the playground.

[Memorize]

At 7/11/06 11:54 PM, Elfer wrote:

Well god damn it, we should be able to torture people and hold them indefnitely without any sort of trial or evidence against them whenever we want!

*Terrorist shoots at US soldiers*
*Terrorist is somehow captured*
*Terrorist is sent to Guantanamo Bay*

Activists: "They deserve to be treated like human beings!"

I don't really see the logic in this.

Human rights are rights for humans, no matter how shitty those humans may be.

Iraqis had shitty human rights...
But oh look, once we thought "OMG, Saddam doesn't have WMDs", human rights for Iraqi's went down the shitter.

You signed the international treaties, you agree to the rules set out in said treaties.

Uh, no. I didn't sign it. If you mean the head honchos who decided to sign it back in the day, then yes, you could say America signed it. But being as to how we're not a true democracy, then no, America didn't sign it.

[Memorize]

At 7/11/06 08:59 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

I thought Americans were proud of their justice system. Not too scared to use it.

No, I hate our Justice System. It sucks (sometimes). How can you honestly rule in favor of a robber who broke his leg trying to break into someone's home? How can you rule in favor as someone as stupid as the lady who spilt hot cofee onto herself? How can you send a man to prison for walking into his room finding someone who's raping his wife and then killing that man who's raping his wife?

I guess it's not our system...it's our dumbass jury members and judges.

[JMHX]

At 7/12/06 12:16 AM, AccessCode wrote:

At 7/11/06 11:54 PM, Elfer wrote:

Activists: "They deserve to be treated like human beings!"

I don't really see the logic in this.

hu·man
n.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person

[Camarohusky]

At 7/12/06 12:29 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: hu·man
n.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person

I still fail to see how that matters... :P

[MortalWound]

At 7/11/06 08:08 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: I can't beleive you haven't read the Constitution.
Or, at least, the 27 Amendments. God, who hasn't?

The president can only serve two presidential terms... I don't know what else to say, I figured EVERYBODY knew that... I'm feeling numb.

Didn't you know? He's writing a new law that says that a president can hold more than 2 terms if it is a time of war. hahahaha, just kidding. But if he did, we'd probably be living under a monarchy for the next x amount of years...

[SirLebowski]

At 7/11/06 03:52 PM, ReiperX wrote: Well, you can tell the elections are right around the corner. In some ways I hope that maybe this is how he really feels and not just some reelection ploy, but I do remain doubtful.

Hey, I don't care the motivation. As long as SOMETHING good comes out of these past terms.

It's better than the usual election time politics. Ban flag burning, and raise cig. tax, anyone?

[JMHX]

At 7/12/06 12:57 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/12/06 12:29 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person

I still fail to see how that matters... :P

Yeah, you and the entire Republican party, man.

[ReiperX]

At 7/11/06 08:08 PM, _rainmaker_ wrote: I can't beleive you haven't read the Constitution.
Or, at least, the 27 Amendments. God, who hasn't?

The president can only serve two presidential terms... I don't know what else to say, I figured EVERYBODY knew that... I'm feeling numb.

I've read the constitution asshat. But look what elections are being held soon. Congressional ones. The Republican party isn't looking too good right now, and they are in danger of losing majority which is something that President Bush doesn't want. In the recent past President Bush has done a great job at making Republicans look bad. So this is a step towards helping make them look better in order to help preserver their majority.

[Memorize]

At 7/12/06 01:22 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

Yeah, you and the entire Republican party, man.

Ok. Let me try and dumb this down a bit to your level.

You see, we have these people, who like to conflict pain on others. We also have these rules for people to follow. As long as you follow these importand rules, you don't have to worry about your rights. For example, if you go and kill a little child, does you still deserve the rights of that of a normal citizen?

Tell me oh great one, is it logical if they do deserve the same rights?

[Korriken]

its a technicality... but yeah.

I don't really see a point in taking prisoners myself. but i reckon its the lesser of 2 evils, considering you can only take a prisoner that surrenders, but the alternative is to gun them down after they surrender, and we all know what that would lead up to.

[Slizor]

For example, if you go and kill a little child, does you still deserve the rights of that of a normal citizen?

Tell me oh great one, is it logical if they do deserve the same rights?

Are we talking about in the US where everyone is granted certain inalienable rights?

[JMHX]

At 7/12/06 09:47 AM, AccessCode wrote:

At 7/12/06 01:22 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

You see, we have these people, who like to conflict pain on others. We also have these rules for people to follow. As long as you follow these importand rules, you don't have to worry about your rights. For example, if you go and kill a little child, does you still deserve the rights of that of a normal citizen?

I look to the Constitution for this one. If you are accused of the murder of a child, of a hundred children, of anyone, your case will be heard in a court of your peers. The United States doesn't toss people in legal black holes because we dislike the crimes they have committed, as the Supreme Court has now said on three different occasions. If you are found guilty, you no longer have the rights of a normal citizen. You're in prison.

That's what the criminal code of the Constitution is there for. You can disregard it and say some people don't deserve it because you don't like them, but you'd be going against the established law of the nation.

[ReiperX]

At 7/12/06 09:47 AM, AccessCode wrote:

At 7/12/06 01:22 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

Yeah, you and the entire Republican party, man.

Ok. Let me try and dumb this down a bit to your level.

You see, we have these people, who like to conflict pain on others. We also have these rules for people to follow. As long as you follow these importand rules, you don't have to worry about your rights. For example, if you go and kill a little child, does you still deserve the rights of that of a normal citizen?

Tell me oh great one, is it logical if they do deserve the same rights?

Yes, if you kill your child, if you kill all of your children, if you kill someone else's child. You deserver a fair trial. As far as the people in Gitmo, they deserve a fair trial also. Yes some of these people are guilty, and by all means give them a trial, find them guilty and throw away the key. But look at it this way. The government comes in and takes your son, and throws him away in jail never presses charges and says they don't have to press charges and keep him indefinately. How is this going to make you feel about your government?

[Elfer]

At 7/12/06 12:16 AM, AccessCode wrote:

At 7/11/06 11:54 PM, Elfer wrote: You signed the international treaties, you agree to the rules set out in said treaties.

Uh, no. I didn't sign it. If you mean the head honchos who decided to sign it back in the day, then yes, you could say America signed it. But being as to how we're not a true democracy, then no, America didn't sign it.

Fine.

YOURE GOVERNMENT signed the treaties, therefore YOUR GOVERNMENT should follow the rules set out in them. Feel better now, captain semantics?